Michael Ejercito
2019-11-04 16:30:53 UTC
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15108/connecticut-ridicule-censorship
Connecticut: Where Ridicule is a Crime
by Alan M. Dershowitz
November 2, 2019 at 5:00 am
Send
Print
Share273
Among the most fundamental First Amendment rights is to ridicule —
regardless of the reason. The same is true of holding people or groups up to
contempt. Were Connecticut's absurd statute to be upheld — which it will not
be — it could be applied to comedians, op-ed writers, politicians,
professors and other students.
And what about "creed"? Is being a conservative or a Trump supporter a creed
that cannot be ridiculed?... [T]herein lies its greatest danger: selective
prosecution based on current political correctness. Precisely the kind of
unpopular speech which the First Amendment was designed to protect...
Such hateful expressions [Anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and
anti-conservative] are not only tolerated, they are often praised as
"progressive" by some of the same students and faculty members who would
censor politically incorrect hate speech. Under the First Amendment, such
selective censorship is intolerable.
All who care about civil liberties, regardless of race, should now join with
the racist students in opposing their criminal prosecution and demanding
that the Connecticut statute be struck down as unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the president of the
university should lead the campaign against criminalizing speech that
ridicules. Now that would take courage in our age of political correctness
and at a time when the hard left is demanding "free speech for me but not
for thee." But this is not an age in which courage is widely practiced,
especially on university campuses, and most especially by administrators.
Among the most fundamental First Amendment rights is to ridicule —
regardless of the reason. The same is true of holding people or groups up to
contempt. Were Connecticut's absurd statute to be upheld — which it will not
be — it could be applied to comedians, op-ed writers, politicians,
professors and other students. (Image source: iStock)
Two students at the University of Connecticut have been charged with the
crime of ridiculing African Americans by shouting the N-word as part of a
childishly inappropriate game. A video of the incident went viral and
generated protests on and off the campus.
Outrageous as shouting this racist epithet is, the First Amendment protects
it from criminal prosecution or other governmental sanctions. The
Connecticut General Statute under which the students were charged is just
about as unconstitutional as any statute can be. It is not even a close
case. Here is what the statute criminalizes:
Section 53-37 - Ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination,
nationality or race.
Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any
person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color,
denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall
be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.
"Ridicules or holds up to contempt"! Among the most fundamental First
Amendment rights is to ridicule — regardless of the reason. The same is true
of holding people or groups up to contempt. Were this absurd statute to be
upheld — which it will not be — it could be applied to comedians, op-ed
writers, politicians, professors and other students.
Consider, for example, ridiculing people based on nationality. Sacha Baron
Cohen, based on his films, would be guilty on multiple accounts. So would
Mel Brooks. African American comedians often ridicule "whitey." Feminist
stand-up comedians mock men mercilessly.
Or consider "holds up to contempt" — half the faculty of many universities,
including some at University of Connecticut — would be guilty for holding up
Israel to contempt. Or students who attack other students for "white
privilege" or "male privilege" would be committing a crime. Or pro-choice
students or faculty who mock Christian fundamentalists who oppose abortion
or gay rights. Where would it stop?
And what about "creed"? Is being a conservative or a Trump supporter a creed
that cannot be ridiculed?
Of course, none of these politically correct ridiculers would ever be
prosecuted under this statute. And therein lies its greatest danger:
selective prosecution based on current political correctness. Precisely the
kind of unpopular speech which the First Amendment was designed to protect
would be most at risk. Anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-conservative
views are freely expressed not only outside of classes but in some classes
as well. Such hateful expressions are not only tolerated, they are often
praised as "progressive" by some of the same students and faculty members
who would censor politically incorrect hate speech. Under the First
Amendment, such selective censorship is intolerable.
Because the University of Connecticut is a public institution for adults, it
is fully bound by the First Amendment. Its students are free to express
racist ridicule and contempt outside of the classroom (the rules governing
classroom speech are more complex).
The proper response to the expression of such obnoxious views is to counter
them with better views in the marketplace of ideas, not to censor them and
not to call the police.
So let there be rallies demanding mandatory diversity classes. Let the
university president "bravely" stand in solidarity with the understandably
offended students. Let the perpetrators be condemned and ostracized. These
actions too are protected by the first amendment. But do not censor or
prosecute protected obnoxious speech. All who care about civil liberties,
regardless of race, should now join with the racist students in opposing
their criminal prosecution and demanding that the Connecticut statute be
struck down as unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the president of the
university should lead the campaign against criminalizing speech that
ridicules. Now that would take courage in our age of political correctness
and at a time when the hard left is demanding "free speech for me but not
for thee." But this is not an age in which courage is widely practiced,
especially on university campuses, and most especially by administrators.
So, do not count on others to defend the First Amendment rights of
troublemakers who express racial ridicule or condemnation. The defense must
come from grass roots civil libertarians who understand the need to protect
speech we hate even more that speech we love. Where is Voltaire — to whom
the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it" is often attributed — when we most need him?
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at
Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democratic House
Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019.
Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter and Facebook
Connecticut: Where Ridicule is a Crime
by Alan M. Dershowitz
November 2, 2019 at 5:00 am
Send
Share273
Among the most fundamental First Amendment rights is to ridicule —
regardless of the reason. The same is true of holding people or groups up to
contempt. Were Connecticut's absurd statute to be upheld — which it will not
be — it could be applied to comedians, op-ed writers, politicians,
professors and other students.
And what about "creed"? Is being a conservative or a Trump supporter a creed
that cannot be ridiculed?... [T]herein lies its greatest danger: selective
prosecution based on current political correctness. Precisely the kind of
unpopular speech which the First Amendment was designed to protect...
Such hateful expressions [Anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and
anti-conservative] are not only tolerated, they are often praised as
"progressive" by some of the same students and faculty members who would
censor politically incorrect hate speech. Under the First Amendment, such
selective censorship is intolerable.
All who care about civil liberties, regardless of race, should now join with
the racist students in opposing their criminal prosecution and demanding
that the Connecticut statute be struck down as unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the president of the
university should lead the campaign against criminalizing speech that
ridicules. Now that would take courage in our age of political correctness
and at a time when the hard left is demanding "free speech for me but not
for thee." But this is not an age in which courage is widely practiced,
especially on university campuses, and most especially by administrators.
Among the most fundamental First Amendment rights is to ridicule —
regardless of the reason. The same is true of holding people or groups up to
contempt. Were Connecticut's absurd statute to be upheld — which it will not
be — it could be applied to comedians, op-ed writers, politicians,
professors and other students. (Image source: iStock)
Two students at the University of Connecticut have been charged with the
crime of ridiculing African Americans by shouting the N-word as part of a
childishly inappropriate game. A video of the incident went viral and
generated protests on and off the campus.
Outrageous as shouting this racist epithet is, the First Amendment protects
it from criminal prosecution or other governmental sanctions. The
Connecticut General Statute under which the students were charged is just
about as unconstitutional as any statute can be. It is not even a close
case. Here is what the statute criminalizes:
Section 53-37 - Ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination,
nationality or race.
Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any
person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color,
denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall
be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.
"Ridicules or holds up to contempt"! Among the most fundamental First
Amendment rights is to ridicule — regardless of the reason. The same is true
of holding people or groups up to contempt. Were this absurd statute to be
upheld — which it will not be — it could be applied to comedians, op-ed
writers, politicians, professors and other students.
Consider, for example, ridiculing people based on nationality. Sacha Baron
Cohen, based on his films, would be guilty on multiple accounts. So would
Mel Brooks. African American comedians often ridicule "whitey." Feminist
stand-up comedians mock men mercilessly.
Or consider "holds up to contempt" — half the faculty of many universities,
including some at University of Connecticut — would be guilty for holding up
Israel to contempt. Or students who attack other students for "white
privilege" or "male privilege" would be committing a crime. Or pro-choice
students or faculty who mock Christian fundamentalists who oppose abortion
or gay rights. Where would it stop?
And what about "creed"? Is being a conservative or a Trump supporter a creed
that cannot be ridiculed?
Of course, none of these politically correct ridiculers would ever be
prosecuted under this statute. And therein lies its greatest danger:
selective prosecution based on current political correctness. Precisely the
kind of unpopular speech which the First Amendment was designed to protect
would be most at risk. Anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-conservative
views are freely expressed not only outside of classes but in some classes
as well. Such hateful expressions are not only tolerated, they are often
praised as "progressive" by some of the same students and faculty members
who would censor politically incorrect hate speech. Under the First
Amendment, such selective censorship is intolerable.
Because the University of Connecticut is a public institution for adults, it
is fully bound by the First Amendment. Its students are free to express
racist ridicule and contempt outside of the classroom (the rules governing
classroom speech are more complex).
The proper response to the expression of such obnoxious views is to counter
them with better views in the marketplace of ideas, not to censor them and
not to call the police.
So let there be rallies demanding mandatory diversity classes. Let the
university president "bravely" stand in solidarity with the understandably
offended students. Let the perpetrators be condemned and ostracized. These
actions too are protected by the first amendment. But do not censor or
prosecute protected obnoxious speech. All who care about civil liberties,
regardless of race, should now join with the racist students in opposing
their criminal prosecution and demanding that the Connecticut statute be
struck down as unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the president of the
university should lead the campaign against criminalizing speech that
ridicules. Now that would take courage in our age of political correctness
and at a time when the hard left is demanding "free speech for me but not
for thee." But this is not an age in which courage is widely practiced,
especially on university campuses, and most especially by administrators.
So, do not count on others to defend the First Amendment rights of
troublemakers who express racial ridicule or condemnation. The defense must
come from grass roots civil libertarians who understand the need to protect
speech we hate even more that speech we love. Where is Voltaire — to whom
the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it" is often attributed — when we most need him?
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at
Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democratic House
Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019.
Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter and Facebook
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
